The Monk’s Podcast 34 with Shyamananda Prabhu – War – A Spiritual Perspective

Podcast Video:

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Hare Krishna, Shravan Prabhu, welcome. Hare Krishna, Shravan Prabhu, nice to be back. Yes, wonderful.

What's on the table today? So, today I thought we will have a war. So, we can discuss about the concept of war from a spiritual perspective. Maybe we can talk first about wars and why they happen from the normal historical, social, cultural, political analysis perspective.

Then we can look at it from a more of a scriptural and spiritual perspective. And then we could talk about what is the role of a spiritualist, especially an engaged spiritualist in the midst of a war. Is that okay? Yeah.

So, you have something like a road map which we can follow. Yeah, these three points only I said. Let's look at normal causes of war.

War from a philosophical and a scriptural perspective. And then a spiritualist rule with respect to a war, vision and rule. Okay.

So, in some ways, the history of the world has often been a history of wars because the most important historical events, generally, if you study the history of the world, it is this war happened here. That aggression happened over there. Generally, it's three main things.

One thing is maybe some major elections. Some building was elected. Some fort was elected.

Something like that. Some new thing was created. Something was conquered.

Or, of course, when you conquered, it's also, there is destruction over there, but, or it was some person emerged who did something. So it could be like a collective achievement, a famous person. Basically the three things in history, you know, things which are achieved, the geographies are changed and people come up.

So wars seem to be a big feature of human history itself. And relatively speaking, maybe the last, before the crisis came upon us, the last few years, it seems that we didn't have any major wars. And, but otherwise in human history, war has been a constant feature.

And of course it's a terrible feature. And some statistics say that the last century, the 20th century, more people were killed in wars than all the previous 19th centuries combined together. And one reason for that is that we started using weapons of mass destruction and especially basically technologically advanced weapons.

The capacity to kill has increased enormously. And that's why now wars, there is much more at stake than in the past. And there's one point I'll make, and then I would like to hear you now.

One reason why they say what I read is why in the last 40, 50 years, wars, open wars are not taken place. There has always been hostilities going on below the surface. So one reason for that is deterrence that the India, Pakistan, India, China had open war several times, but after both of them have developed nuclear weapons, all three of them have nuclear weapons.

Then the threat of destruction, call it mad mutual destruction, that acts as a deterrent from open war. Fair. So, but, so this is a point that wars have been there throughout history, but now the scale can be much more.

So this is just an introduction. Any thoughts on this? Yeah. I read somewhere that in the last 3,500 years of recorded history and the world as we call our world, our planet, it had peace all over the planet only for something less than 200 years.

So there was always something or other going on. Yeah. Out of it, maybe about 2,700 to 3,000 years of recorded history, only two to 300 years of like the whole 365 day period where there was no conflict anywhere.

Otherwise there will always be something or other going on. That is right. And especially wars were fought over what human society started seeing as like an area of conquest.

So first it was over land and then forests or trade wars, wars over trade routes. Who controls the route? They control the revenue. Then wars were fought over spices, salt, opium.

And they say that Cleopatra's nose, if it was a little bit shorter, could have avoided a war. Another thing I think about Helen, it is said that the phase that launched a thousand ships. Ships.

Yeah. So feminine beauty also was a cause of war previously, not so much in the last few hundred years. And I have this Latin saying Ultima Ratio Regum.

War is the last resort of kings. In fact, this thing, this, this thing is inscribed on a canon of all things that, oh yeah, there's a famous canon. Yeah.

The last resort of kings. So that means a king would see that if this fails, that fails, then ultimately there is war. Another point.

And then I would like you to carry it further. If you see the internet is full of quotes, war has something like more than 3000 quotes. Check.

I just had one result which talked about how many quotes. Yeah. There are more than 7200 quotes available on.

This is a very famous website called for books called Goodreads. Yeah. Yeah.

So, so we have a diverse range of philosophers right from Shelley and Bertrand Russell and Walter Scott, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King that saying that war is a very poor chisel to carve out your tomorrow. Something like that. Okay.

So it's a very bad tool for, for your future. So we see philosophy and we also have a famous American general Sherman. There was a Sherman tanks named after him saying that war is hell.

So we have soldiers who know what is hell. We have poets and philosophers and everybody. And also at the same time, there is a general feeling in today's contemporary history, at least 150, minimum 150 year old history that for war blame the politicians because they are the ones who profit from them.

And there is recorded evidence about how people have profited from war. So first I would like, there are many things, but just to prioritize. This is old Greek saying, trouble at home, war abroad.

That is whenever you find your domestic policies unmanageable, you have made some big faux pas, you have made some big mistakes. The king is bankrupt or whatever. Just borrow money, start a war and then you can divert the attention of the people and get the results, whatever they might be.

So war is generally seen as squandering of the nation's resources. Okay. There are many interesting points.

Just one point of feminine beauty causing war. And maybe I would just like to qualify that a little bit that it's not necessarily feminine beauty that causes war. It is infatuation with feminine beauty because sometimes people say it's not the beauty which is causing war, it's the male insistence on controlling her.

Yeah. Sometimes people portray that Draupadi was the cause of the Kurukshetra war. It's not Draupadi was the cause.

So really in what sense? No. In fact, it is said that some people at least on the television and other places, they show that when Draupadi was born, she was born with the prophecy that she would be the cause of the destruction of the world's Kshatriyas. But I have not seen this specifically in any texts directly, but even if it is said like that, it is not that she is going to sow the seeds of enmity and plot it out.

This people become so attracted by it, that by her, then that might cause it. So it's, I just sort of just mentioned that. And this other point of politicians utilizing cynically war, you know, in history, when did it happen that the politicians and warriors became separated? Because George Washington, as far as I know, he was a, he fought a war, but now today's heads of state, I don't think in any of the, in the second world war, any of the major generals were the, okay.

None of the heads of state were warriors. I don't know about in the first world war also. So did you know Napoleon Bonaparte was, he was himself used to fight.

That was towards the end of the 19th century. So when did the separation happen? Because now it's almost very few countries have heads of state who are actually warriors unnecessarily means politicians and politicians and fighters are almost separated now. Well, we could say about the first world war where the British public themselves coined the phrase that the British army in the first world war was an army of lions led by donkeys.

Led by donkeys. Okay. So some historians are saying it's not fair.

Not all generals were like that. But the, the general mood and there is a famous BBC comedy serial called Blackadder. Yeah.

There is a snake. So, so that, that makes it is a very scathing attack on the conduct of the British generals during first world war. It seems there is some truth in that.

And in India also we see how Mithiraj Chauhan, Hari Singh Malwar, Ranjit Singh, Shivaji, all these were strategists, they were military generals, they were princes, they were kings, but they also were at the forefront of any conflict. What about Subhash Chandra Bose? Was he himself a fighter or more of a leader of, he formed the INA? He may not be actually fighting, but he was very much at the forefront. Okay.

So even if somebody is not known for his heroic fighting skills, at least they're down at the front lines. Yeah. Okay.

That makes a difference also. Yeah. So this could also, that means if politicians are not fighting, the stakes for them are not that high.

They could gain, they could just send people to fight and they lose, lives are lost, but they themselves are not at risk that much. So that could also be. It is said that in the Vietnam war, there was this American general, general Westmoreland.

He was never near the actual perimeter of fighting and they said that every day he would be served in silver by his white gloved chef. So that's the kind of anger which the average American soldier would have that here I am fighting for, I don't know what cause and the person responsible is very comfortably situated somewhere in a properly protected bunker. And so his lifestyle doesn't change just because he's on the battlefield.

So 21st century Kali Yuga, we have more and more people far away removed from the actual battlefield or the general soldier also doesn't know the exact cause of the conflict he is involved in. Hmm. Yeah.

Makes sense because war is very complex and especially when countries launch regime change wars in different parts of the world or whatever, then that's a, it's very different from what might be previously have been fought. Yeah. That is one point.

Another point was that now in history, there have been certain expansionist rulers, whether it is Alexander or Genghis Khan or many of the, the Turkish and was it a Mughals who came to India? And then of course the, now the British, they did not come finally for fighting. They came for trade, but then eventually they gained power also. So India has seen a lot of attackers.

So we could say that is associated with prosperity because India was quite a prosperous place. But now when wars happen at one level, there are specific historical causes and we can analyze them. In fact, the first world war is said to have been the time when people had this since the time of what is called scientific enlightenment, that the linear progressive wave of way of history, that we are outgrowing the animalistic way of living, which is involved in fighting through reason.

And we will triumph and we will have peace and prosperity based on reason. But that was the time when, why the first world war took place? Now, why the killing of one not very important prince in Sarajevo, I think, that eventually led to eruption where the whole continent was inflamed. So the exact people, you can know the historical, this event, this event, this event happened, but why it became so big? It was the second world was different because there's one clear Hitler was had a very expansionist aggressive agenda, but if the first world was not like that.

So without going to the historical point, the idea that as human beings progress by progress, it's in the more rational scientific technological sense of progress. The idea that we would be able to give overcome our animalistic tendencies to fight and live peacefully, that was debunked. And then basically there is science and there's technology.

So science is the idea that we human beings are reasoning creature and we'll explore and gain knowledge and technologies applying it. The first world war exploded the myth of the rational human being overcoming the irrational technologies to fight. And the second world war exploded the myth of the benevolence of technology because the second world war, at least toward the end, nuclear weapons were used.

And it is said to be, it was especially poignant that Einstein is considered to be the greatest brain of the last century. And his greatest invention was E is equal to MC square. So it is the greatest, the greatest insight of the greatest brain of the last century became the cause of the greatest destruction of that century.

So the point I'm making is that through the scientific vision of progress of humanity and the subsiding of war that has not been borne out. Are you aware of Einstein's quote that I'm not worried about the third world war, but I'm worried about the fourth, which will be fought with sticks and stones. Sticks and stones.

Yeah, I heard about it. So, so I think, I presume what he means is that the third world war will annihilate most of, will, will retard the clock, will turn back the clock. Like the second world war brought forth the nuclear weapons.

The third will be seeing the usage of these weapons by multi-parties. Hmm. And then the world will be bombed back to the stone age.

Yes. His E is equal to MC square is considered one of the founding principles of nuclear warfare or nuclear fission. Yeah, because, you know, that was the basis by which matter is converted into energy nuclear.

And basically in the atomic weapons, we basically use the splitting of matter to release energy. The specific ways in which it is done is different, but he's equal to MC square was the idea that it is not a one-to-one correlation. It's not that this led to this, but this was the basis of this from there.

Many things happened. Nuclear nuclear energy has come, which has been used for good purposes also, but that was without that, this wouldn't have happened. So I see other names like, sorry to be real, but other names like Enrico Fermi and Robert Oppenheimer, they are also taken in conjunction with this whole project.

Of course. See, there's two different things. One is the specific process for developing the weapon.

Okay. Okay. It is like say gravity is the founding insight or the Newton's laws of the machines are finding insight.

And only after that we can have various machines without that nothing would have been there. So the Manhattan project Einstein himself was not involved. Correct.

There is definitely not there. Although he wrote letters to, I think Eisenhower saying that you need to develop the weapons before Germany develops it. And then he was quite insistent about it.

And then eventually after the world war came out, at least the mainstream version of history shows that Hitler was nowhere close to developing a weapon. And that's why Einstein later said that I, my sending that letter was, was a mistake. He regretted it.

That caused the destruction. So yeah, please continue. Yes.

So now, so that means the point I was making through, say first I made the point that with wars now using technology, the stakes are much higher. And then the idea that through reason, we will be able to overcome our, our natural tendencies for aggression. Is there an element that as we advance more in science, if we know more about the physical world, that will make us wiser and that will lead us to make wise choices.

Is that the. Oh yes, of course. That was the idea that say the, in fact, say for example, the, one of the negative sides is that we should have one kingdom or one government or whatever European union is one attempt at doing that, that nationalism causes wars.

So dissolve national boundaries and have a, like a big union. So the idea is that now see many of these philosophies I read recently, that socialism is a great idea, but that doesn't mean it is a great reality. So one reason is that humans don't act always according to reason.

So that means in principle, when we say, yeah, everybody has wealth and distribute wealth equally and everybody can be reasonably happy. But it doesn't work like that because humans are sometimes if some, if I have talent, some different people are different levels of talent, different levels of motivation, different people have different levels of hunger for power and selfishness, selflessness. So it's very, so there was this idea that as we progress with rationality, people felt that we will be able to through reasonable discussions, resolve issues and avoid wars.

So in fact, there's a saying that when the discussions, when, when the discussions stop, then bloodshed begins. Yeah. So now, so basically human reason as a source for avoiding or minimizing wars, that is it can be a part of the solution, but it is definitely not, not what it was thought it will be.

So Freud had this idea that, so basically the whole enlightenment project, the scientific enlightenment, as they call it, that was based on the idea that human reason will emerge triumphant. So Sigmund Freud said that our human reason is like a tiny canoe and it is floating on a vast ocean of unprocessed emotions. Okay.

And once the emotions just come up as stormy waves, reason gets tossed aside. So he said that he considered the sec first world war to be like that time when those irrational emotions kept up and it caused huge devastation. So, so this is a, I felt that this is a more generic way of looking at it because specifically if you go into wars, each nation can have its justification.

And what was that? I think Winston Churchill said that history will be kind to me because I will write history. History will treat me kindly because I will write the history. So in the past, to some extent, there was the romanticization of war also by some people.

The poets would write poems about great heroes fighting and soldiers would be treated as not all soldiers, but at least some, they were sometimes treated like heroes. There was a romanticization of war. And now if reason is not going to be the solution or reason is not, is not the whole solution, then what do we go further? Where do we go for analyzing? Like I earlier said, deterrence is one way.

So I think it's one, some American president said that the more we prepare for war, the more likely we have, it is that we can have peace. So the idea that if we have, we are well prepared for war, then nobody will dare to threaten us. And then we will be able to maintain peace.

So if we go from a scriptural perspective now, you want to add something more or we can go to a more traditional, more scriptural or spiritual perspective now? No, no, no. You continue this point. Continue this point.

You finish this point about an American president. Okay. So now India in the West is known, say for Gandhi's and his non-violence as a means of solving problems.

And now there are some historians who say that non-violence is also a strategic weapon. It was the Indians didn't, the Indian freedom fighters didn't have that many weapons. Of course, Gandhi was a man of principles, but he would non-violence have worked at all places.

In fact, he told Jews that if Hitler wants to kill you, turn your other cheek and you should evoke the compassion in his heart. And would that have worked? So non-violence, if it can be used to resolve conflicts, then we see in the Mahabharata war also, as the Pandavas tried their best to resolve things non-violently. Even Krishna himself went as a peace messenger.

And sometimes people say that we have done everything humanly possible to avoid war. In the case of the Pandavas, we could say that we have done everything humanly and divinely possible. Krishna is the divinity.

Even the Ram sent multiple messengers. He sent Hanuman and Nangad. So peaceful refuge is always the best.

But it seems sometimes, sometimes wars are unavoidable. And that is the kind of wars that are described in our scriptures, where it's the last alternative because there is just no other way to resolve the issues. Any thoughts on this? Just one thought about what you said last time, Pranav, just about how science, technology and a general rise in consciousness would deter people from war.

So there was a small war between two Latin American countries over a football match. Really? Yeah, so for them football is next to religion or religion is next to football. Depends upon how you see.

Like in Brazil, anti-poverty riots, that is the government should do something to quell poverty. And these riots and marches and demonstrations were stopped by the government's rerun of previous Brazilian World Cup football conquests. So at that time there was no mobile technology.

So if the government is showing from morning till night all famous Brazilian wins, people prefer to stay indoors and watch that rather than demonstrate for poverty, against poverty of course. So seems like human society will not rest for a minute longer if war is a tempting proposal to solve some issues. Whether it is the ineptitude of a ruler or whether it is the superlative aptitude of the ruler.

So if it's ineptitude, it will be more like an internal revolution or an external aggression by someone. If it is ineptitude on part of the ruler, then with the help of his military, he may try to divert attention of the nation to some conflict outside. And superlative aptitude means ambitiousness to conquer other lands.

Like Alexander Napoleon, whoever wants to show off that I want to own the world. Like when Napoleon was asked that for this particular purpose, do you want to take the opinion of the state? So his famous quote is the state, that's me. If you want to know what France wants, just ask me.

That's it. So what was meant means to take the opinion of the state means some government… Take the opinion of the masses, take the opinion of the people under you. So he's saying there's nothing separate.

The state is me. Oh. So when somebody has that kind of a, we can call it a false ego or understanding of oneself, then suddenly the mode of passion will rise and then that will create some kind of a conflict.

And we also know that humility, non-violence, we discussed non-violence a little bit. Vidura tells Dhritarashtra that there is only one fault in a meek person. He's perceived as weak, he's elanimous.

Yeah. And so then the natural things brings into action. So I just wanted to make the point that just because there is enough of social progress, technological progress or scientific progress, that doesn't mean that automatically this will beget as a child a form of period where there is no war.

Wars have their own ways and means of coming into human society. And we are just trying to understand the ways why people fight. Yeah.

Yes. You know, nowadays, religion is often blamed for wars, but historically speaking, very small number of wars were fought because of religious considerations. Explicitly.

And even those say, except for the Crusades and maybe a few wars in the Middle East, the First World War, the Second World War, as well as most of the wars for history, they are more for secular purposes. So, of course, I think terrorism is associated with religious extremism. And we'll discuss that in a separate session.

I thought I'll just mention that religion is also considered to be a cause of war. But most of the major conflicts are not, historically have not been based on religion or not been caused by religion primarily. So now we discuss from the perspective of, say, development of reason.

And you also mentioned the point of the raising of consciousness. So it's interesting that even modern or contemporary thinkers use this word of raising of consciousness or expanding consciousness. In fact, nowadays, it's called the woke culture.

And the woke culture, the woke means actually awakened to the injustices. Your consciousness is awakened, basically, the idea is there. But when we talk about, say, the elevation of consciousness, if we consider from our, from the perspective of three gunas, three modes, these are, it's not so much about the extent of your awareness.

That is important, but it's not how much you see, but why you see. It says the modes are primarily, I said a lot in the concept of modes, but in my understanding, modes are primarily associated with motivation, motives. So you can add to this or qualify it.

Are they like the lenses through which we see things? Can it be said like that? Yeah, definitely. It's like, I say that this is the consciousness, this is matter. And modes are subtle forces that shape the interaction between matter and consciousness.

Yeah, very well put. So now with respect to, so in my understanding that it's like the fundamental problem for human society is that we have a certain quantity of resources and we need to share it. I mean, how do we distribute it? That is the fundamental problem.

Whether it be money, whether it be property, whether it be prestige, whether it be, as in the case of a beautiful woman, whom different kings covet for whatever. So in goodness, the idea is let's have equal distribution. In passion, I want the best.

In ignorance, it's, I want everything or no one should get anything. I'll destroy everything. So, whereas we could say in transcendence, it is that I will give my part to you also if it's required.

So if we consider this, this dynamic, Kshatriya in the Indian tradition, there were Kshatriyas and Brahmanas. And the Kshatriyas were the warriors and they would administer society through Shastra. And the Brahmanas were the, we could say the ministers in today's language, and they would help manage society through Shastra.

So Shastra and Shastra. And in general, the Brahmanas are said to be in goodness. Kshatriyas are said to be more in passion.

So when the Brahmanas are there, when the Brahmana Kshatriyas work together, and there's certain amount of regulation of the Kshatriyas by Brahmanas, then the passion doesn't become excessive. So there has to be, society has to have defenders. And in that sense, they have to have some kind of martial training, some amount of aggressive ability, but they also need to have some regulation.

And it may be very difficult for the same person to have both. On one side, aggression also and regulation also. So of course, everybody needs to have some amount of self-restraint.

But comparatively speaking, for the same person to embody both may be difficult. So the system is that if the Brahmanas are the advisors or the consultants of Kshatriyas, then the wars that would be fought, if at all they are fought, they would not be that, because of impulsiveness or possessiveness or those kind of worldly motives. Any thoughts on this? What I heard is that, let's say there is a benevolent king and he is powerful and if he sees that in some neighboring place, the king is not properly governing.

So with the help of his Brahmanas, he would actually attack that kingdom, subjugate the reigning monarch, make him his vassal or a satellite, exact taxes from him, but impose his way of benign rule over the population of that particular place. So a not so well performing Kshatriya is chastened or disciplined or even trained up. The population doesn't lose anything because the population has nothing to do with the war.

Another one thing which is important that in Vedic culture we see that only the Kshatriyas fight. They do not take Shudras, Vaishyas or Brahmanas as ransom or kidnap them. Women, old children, they are always treated very honorably.

So what is a combatant is strictly defined in Vedic culture as a Kshatriya who holds weapons. But in the advancement of Kali Yuga, this important thing that somebody might wage war for a benign cause, which is, of course, the slogans are there, but we don't see any as such. But this also could be there that a Kshatriya, as you rightly said, properly guided by Shastra in the hands of Brahmanas would know how well to use Shastra which is in his hand.

So overall, that is, if the modes of passion and ignorance increase, then there are lesser chances of resolving things through discussions. Say, you know, we could consider some issues which can be resolved to discussions and they are not resolved for whatever reasons. Some issues that are not resolved by discussions and confrontation is required.

So some issues which are in which instead of discussion, confrontation is chosen. That means straight out war is done. For example, say, when Hitler attacked USSR or whatever was the kingdom at that time, USSR.

So he had the no aggression pact with Russia. And then suddenly he attacked and Stalin felt that there were no grievances against us. Was it Stalin or Lenin at that time? Stalin.

So basically the idea is that there were no, like, these are my demands and you don't fulfill me. I'll attack you, just straight attack. So there was not even an attempt to resolve by discussion.

That's just one example. So generally we could say that there are some issues which may never be resolvable by discussion. Just like it happened between Duryodhana, Duryodhana's refusal to give one tip of a needle worth land.

So, but if there are issues that are resolvable by discussion, then they should be resolved. So if there is goodness on both sides, then that is generally, I would say reason. So going back to the earlier point of why, why humanity doesn't act according to reason.

Although we have, we are developed creatures and we have developed scientifically. So my understanding of that is that, yes, there in human society, there are, there are some thinkers, some scientists, some philosophers. So you could say philosophically minded thinking scientists, and they are in goodness.

And they can understand reason and they can discuss based on reason. But quite often the politicians, they are not necessarily in the mode of goodness. They are in the mode of passion.

And then often the people also may not be in the mode of goodness. They might be in passion or ignorance. They can also be incited easily.

So it's not that reason is not important. The reason the faculty is important, but whether the people in power are primarily driven by reason. That is a, that is open to question.

So if somebody is too much in passion and we're going toward ignorance, then they will not be driven by reason. And that's why reasonable discussions may not, not lead to resolutions. So, so we could say in some extreme cases, wars may be required.

So going back to your earlier point of either kingdom is not being ruled properly. Then we could presume that the, in terms of the modes, the king is in the mode too much of passion or even of ignorance. Where the king is exploiting the citizens for one's own gain instead of facilitating the citizen's welfare.

So in some cases, just as Krishna says, the modes are in conflict with each other. Conflicts may be unavoidable, but the way to deal with conflicts or to minimize conflicts is to try to increase the mode of goodness. And increase the, or rather ensure people in the mode of goodness have positions of power.

Yeah. Any thoughts on this? This leads me to think about this one thing that as we read in ancient history that only combatants would fight. Then we have the last 3,000 years of recorded history, so-called recorded history according to Western way of thinking.

That only when we have edicts and pamphlets or tablets or shards or pottery or cave paintings showing war, only that means that is history. Up to some extent, the general public was not affected. But only when, like in the Roman conquest, they would have soldiers and it seems like they were not paid so good.

So, soldiery was not a very good option. But then government would start to force people and in the last 1,000 years we have either forced conscription, that means even somebody is not a combatant in the sense of a Kshatriya according to his modes. Just for the sake of more money or like in Bengal, there was a famine and there were British recruitment posters that in the army you get say something like 14 rupees salary per year.

So, the only option for a family was to send their three young sons. They say that at least you three will earn something, you will be fed every day and with the money you send, we also can be fed. So, war also has become an economic weapon or a food weapon.

Okay. So, Kali Yuga has seen war go into almost all aspects of life and people become emotionally destroyed, socially destroyed, the nation becomes politically destroyed and therefore they say war doesn't show who is right, it just says who is left. Oh God! Yeah, I think in the Second World War also Britain raised, it said Britain created some famines in India so that Indians would be forced to support the war effort by enlisting in the army because that is the only way of livelihood.

There is what is called the scorched earth policy where if you are losing some land, then destroy that land before it falls in the hand of the enemy. The Russians did it with German advancing troops. When they would conquer a city, they would not find anything worthwhile there.

The crops would be burnt, the houses destroyed and the factories completely destroyed. Yeah, it said Britain also did that in Bengal to check the Japanese aggression over there. So, that's shocking.

So, this we could say is Tamasic in a sense. Completely, yeah. So, destroying.

So, if we say that elevating the modes or elevating the general consciousness of people is what is important so that conflicts are minimized. We cannot eliminate conflicts, but we can at least minimize them. To think that they will be eliminated is idealistic, but to think that we just have to be there and do nothing to avoid it.

That will be too pessimistic. So, this may bring us to maybe the last part. So, we discussed contemporary wars and their causes.

Then we discussed it more from a scriptural perspective, philosophical perspective. So, now, what would be a spiritualist's perspective on war? So, by spiritualists, we could talk about various things. One is say people who are spiritualists and full-time renunciates, but others are people who are engaged in the world.

And having social, familial, national roles and maybe responsibilities also. So, any thoughts on this? Yeah, I think this is an important point and I think you also mentioned, people are also asking me. We are going 3,500 years in the past and now we are here in 2020, July, where China is sort of making big inclusions, provocations against India.

And Indian Twitter world or the social media world is completely agog with so many opinions. Let me begin by making a foundation. Traditionally speaking, whenever scorned monks, brahmacharis or sanyasis would be asked about something, we would give a stock reply from Prabhupada's court that we have nothing to do with politics.

And I am going to change that a little bit, saying that as a monk living in the ashram, I have nothing to do with politics. But for the congregation devotees who work and who get affected and affect others with their opinions, they also need to know how we should be dealing with things. There is an old quote attributed to Madhavacharya, I don't know whether that one should be spiritually absorbed.

That means for my absorption, I should be socially active. I should know what society I'm living in. And I should be politically alert.

So I'm just taking this being alert point of view. So this alert compartment or this room may have so much of luggage. And one of that is China is facing its own problem.

China is having a depleted economy because of the virus and other things. China is dominated by one party rule. Like the Indian army is not a political party's army, but China's army, the People's Revolutionary Army is the army of the Communist Party.

There is no way they can even have any other kind of opinions or whatever. And so I'm trying so many things now. Trouble at home or abroad is one thing which the Chinese could be using.

And they say that in a staring match, the first guy who blinks loses. Yes. So today's countries also use the border skirmishes as a staring match.

And as far as a spiritual practitioner's point of view is concerned, that we have this view that my country, my politicians, my army, whatever extent, good or bad, they are doing something to preserve my peace, my small corner where I can practice my bhakti yoga. So I feel the need to be indicated to them. And I keep them in the same league as the farmers who produce grains, the people who run the telecommunications, the means of communications and everything.

So if I have to say a debt, I have a debt of gratitude to everyone. So why not to the soldiers who are doing that? So personally, I feel grateful. And there is an 11th Canto, Krishna advises Uddhava that one should offer respects to all living entities.

All, not just devotees or sannyasis. So I would see nothing wrong if a practitioner prays for the well-being and protection of soldiers at the border. We don't have that time where multitudes of our lay people are conscripted for war.

In Israel, it could be a reality because everybody has a dual role. Somebody could be editor of a magazine and also a medic in an artillery unit. They just can't afford, they just have an army and a reserve army.

So army is the active army, reserve army is everybody else. Oh, okay. So I'm taking that point of view that one should be alert and if necessary, one should also offer one's prayers for the well-being of soldiers who are protecting the borders of their specific country.

Do you have any other thoughts on that? Yes, very sound points. Now specifically, you know that we are getting the space to practice our spiritual life. That is something which could be applied to any country.

I was in London a few years ago. I met Shruti Dharma Prabhu. He recently departed from the world.

So he told me that he had been invited to some, the Russian, the British politicians had come together for a Diwali celebration, something like that. And there are different Hindu groups also there. And he was asked to lead the lighting of the ceremony or something like that.

And then he was asked to speak for a few words about the significance. What is this? This time and devotees are thankful that, he just mentioned briefly about how Lord Ram has come back from the forest. But then he said, we in our context, we should be thankful.

And what should we be thankful for? And he said, one of the things he mentioned, he says, we are thankful to the country which has given us the freedom to practice our faith. When he spoke that he said many of the politicians are nodding and appreciating that. So I would say this, that could apply to any country.

And in that sense, I like the points of what you said of being politically alert, socially active, apart from being spiritually absorbed. Now in India, we could say the stakes are higher. Because India is not just the place where I am practicing my spirituality.

But it is also a place where for the Bhakti culture, many of its most sacred places through history are there. So we have Rindavan, we have Mayapur, we have Jagannath Puri. And in the past, we see that whenever invaders had come, they have desecrated and plundered these places.

So, of course, Mayapur, not so much, because we didn't have, Mayapur is a little recent, but Puri and Rindavan definitely, and many other places, many other places, the sacred places in India also. So in that sense, it's not just for our practice of Bhakti, but also for the, for the protection of the places that are sacred for the Bhakti tradition. There are so many Dharmic places are there, important for Dharma.

So, I try, I sometimes analyze actions in three terms is intent, that is content and consequence. What are you doing? Why are you doing? And what is the effect of it? So, what is good or what is bad can be decided in all these three terms. Like a doctor gives a medicine, the intent was good, but maybe the prescription was wrong.

The intent was good, the prescription was also right, but there was some side effect and the consequence was bad. So like that, now, in this case, the soldiers were fighting, their intent may not be necessary to protect the country because it's a spiritual country or because spiritualists are there and there's a long spiritual tradition. But the result is that the country is being protected.

And we could talk about, yeah, we may sometimes feel that the government is not as supportive of Dharma as you would like it to be. But still we have our basic freedom to practice. And so in that sense, even if it is not their intent, that is the result.

And we can be appreciative of that. That's one thought about this, just to extend. Any thoughts on this? No.

So then going further, like you said, one thing is prayer. Now beyond that, I feel that different devotees also have different natures. And some devotees may want to be or may even you could say because of their particular nature or background need to be more involved.

So some devotees may have a lot of humanitarian concerns. Some devotees may have a lot of environmental concerns. Some devotees may have a lot of social justice concerns.

Some devotees may have nationalistic concerns. So now like Prabhupada says in the Isopanishad paraphrase that all these isms can be used in the service of Krishna. Various isms.

So I would say that if some devotees have a strong nationalistic zeal within them, it's not contradictory to Bhakti. It can be included within the ambit of spirituality that somebody could be having, they may want to be more involved and they may want to maybe volunteer or support or whatever it is. So now I think there are three things which I would like you to comment on.

The first is if some devotees have that personal interest, then they shouldn't be made to feel that this is all mundane and don't get involved in it. Beyond just prayers, if they want to do something actively, what it may be is they might just want to spread awareness or maybe volunteer somewhere or something like that, whatever it is. So it's not that they have to be stopped from doing this just because they are spiritualists.

Just like we have our natures and we try to dovetail our nature, they can dovetail it. The second point on that would be that at the same time, it's important for them to recognize that this can be included within Bhakti in some ways, in the broad ambit of spirituality or Bhakti, if it's done with a service attitude, but there is much more to it and they shouldn't. So there'll be other devotees who are not interested in that way.

So they shouldn't pressurize other devotees and agitate other devotees. So some devotees may need to talk about nationalistic things and that's fine. If that's what they need, they do it.

But if they start talking, sharing these kinds of reports with other devotees, and then those who are not interested, they get agitated by this. They may say, no, you are in this country, you have to be aware of it. Well, that's true.

But then, well, another country attacking our country is not the only problem in the world. We could say there is an environmental crisis there. You should be aware of this.

Or there are so many poor children who are dying of starvation. You should be aware of this. There is so much caste inequity.

You should be aware of this. So there are hundreds of problems in the world. And if we try to be aware of all of them, we will get overwhelmed.

And it is, and we all feel driven by certain things. So we take it and do it. But we needn't impose what drives us on others.

So we can have our space to take this activity further. But the second point would be don't impose it on others. And third point would be that, the extension of this itself, that as a movement, we are non-political.

And we may not directly involve in activities like these. And we shouldn't internally be thinking that if we are directly doing transcendental activities, and somebody there's a nationalistic concern, then we shouldn't think that the spiritual activities are irrelevant or just too transcendental. That those things also matter.

Like you said, prayers matter. So prayers is one way we are contributing. So actually, like when I think Subhash Chandra Bose wanted devotees who were with Gaudiya Mutt to come, Bhakti Sahasrath Thakur, in a sense, dodged the issue by saying that these are not very well-built people.

So let them do some bhakti. So the point is that he used that reasoning over there. But it's sometimes when a particular issue becomes very prominent in the society, then anybody who is not doing it starts feeling a little guilty or is made to feel guilty.

Aren't you concerned about this? Don't you want to do anything about it? So we shouldn't start thinking that our practice of bhakti is irrelevant. Yes. Sometimes if the modes of passion and ignorance are rising, then they have to be countered appropriately.

If there is aggression, it has to be countered properly. And there are people who will do that. But that doesn't mean that we stop our bhakti or start thinking it is irrelevant.

What we are doing by our spiritual practices is raising our consciousness and we can help others to raise their consciousness. And that is going to be a far more enduring solution. There is a quote of Prabhupada where he says there is no use of crying for world peace unless there is awakening of divine consciousness in the individual.

Yeah. So any comments on these three points or anything related? Yeah. Just to extend the thing further that devotees have complained that they were not given the elbow room to voice their points.

Like you said, somebody could be very much interested in politics, would like to comment. So as with any institution, we also have a binary approach, one or nil. So there could be some places where somebody would be told that you are not supposed to speak on politics, not supposed to speak on war.

And that individual may face that kind of a discrimination. And seeing that I don't want that kind of atmosphere in my project, my temple or something. So you give a free hand.

And then what happens is even the Srimad Bhagavatam class which is meant as a spirituality booster, your daily vitamins for furthering your smaranam and kirtanam of Krishna, that becomes an arena for political speeches. Or like you said, are you not aware, you are not thinking. So somebody who by his own psychosomatic nature doesn't want to feel interested or doesn't even have the gati to understand politics.

He's just interested in chanting. That's what I came and joined this movement for. Now why are you dragging me into a subject which I had no interest before? So somebody would say, what? You had no interest in history and politics? No, no interest.

So either we feel that the person in the first stage who is showing interest is an anomaly or irregularity. And when that person becomes a dominant force and he has a legion of followers, they make others who have come only for smaranam and kirtanam as an anomaly. Yes.

So we need to give them their… No, I would not say we need to give them. They need to find out their space in the secular world outside where they can act as intellectuals and counsel politicians if they have the chance or voice their opinions about how we should fight or not fight or wait or whatever. That can't be allowed in an atmosphere which is dedicated to smaranam and kirtanam or the whole name of Krishna.

So somebody can be a practicing monk and at the same time may have his, I would say conditioning, it's a tough word, but his likings, mildly. And he or she may comment on that. And I would put it on equal ground as if somebody is interested in Shakespeare or somebody is interested in poetry or somebody is interested in… Science and spirituality.

STEM, any STEM topic. Yeah, STEM topic, yes. We did not make the STEM topic the discussion of a Bhagavatam class.

So this person is a practitioner, he stays in a monastery. We are speaking only of monastic people. If somebody is a householder and having his own job, business, whatever, they are absolutely free to do whatever they want.

But a monastic person should be identified as a practitioner of bhakti yoga first. And by the way, he also has interest in STEM. Somebody is a student of Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam Wisdom.

And by the way, he also writes political commentaries for politicians because they like his insights from the scriptures. That is fair. That's a good point.

So just to elaborate this, two things. In one sense, I was thinking that our discussions is also a way we have created some space for ourselves. Exactly.

We are not exactly inviting, forcing people, coercing into agreeing to our opinions. But we decided that this is something which we like to discuss within the framework. And if somebody says, what you are doing is not exactly what Prabhupada wanted, I would humbly ask for some praman.

And if found, I would like to be within the newly redrawn Lakshman Rekhas, so to say. And I am very amenable to that. If somebody tells me that Prabhupada didn't even have one discussion on this.

Fine. We won't discuss on that particular topic. I like the word redrawn Lakshman Rekha.

So I have been through all my points practically. Would you like to? Yeah. Just one point after that, and I'll conclude that.

I just like the point of redrawn Lakshman Rekha because in one sense, we could also say that what is a Lakshman Rekha for me may not be a Lakshman Rekha for you. Say, if I get into reading about politics, I just get agitated and I can't do anything about it and I feel powerless. Somebody else reads about it, maybe they discuss it, they have some influence.

So we also have to see what has what effect on us and what we can do about it. And then we can, in one sense, with the guidance of our spiritual guides or whoever, we have to decide what is a Lakshman Rekha for us. And a lot of problems will come if I impose my Lakshman Rekha on you or you don't allow me to redraw my Lakshman Rekha.

We can't do it maybe in the first few years of our bhakti. But as we grow older, we also recognize what can be done and what can't be done. And second point, so that was just one point.

Any thoughts on this? No, go ahead. And then second was that when you mentioned about different monks and householders and grahasthas, so I felt that I sometimes differentiate between the institution and the movement. So the institution is the official, the office bureau and the official structure and the official resources.

So the institution has a particular purpose. So Srila Prabhupada defined that purpose. And the institution will focus on that.

The movement broadly refers to devotees or individual practitioners who are inspired by the principles of Krishna consciousness and they may apply those principles in various ways. Or they may try to share them in various ways. They may try to expand it in various ways.

So in a sense, if somebody has to, if somebody is very inspired by that, by a particular cause that is not directly spiritual, then they can go ahead and do that. That is, it's almost like a, it's not the, it's like the institution movement can be achinta bheda bhed. It's one, but it's also different.

And there could be room for devotees to do things. Say for example, now this is an entirely different subject. And maybe we'll discuss that.

Say Bhakti Dev Maharaj started Institute for Applied Spiritual Technology. I passed. And in many of the talks, at least initially, there will be nothing spiritual over there.

In some ways, he was tapping the activist and the mystical interest that people had. The car for social causes and the idea of spirituality as a mystical experiences, you know, having some special dreams, the lost continent Atlantis. And stuff like that.

And if you read his books, we may feel where is the spirituality in it. But he's leading to it. So there is a possibility also that some devotees could create some forums for taking things forward as a part of the movement, if they feel very inspired to do something on their own.

And so that's just one part. Any thoughts on this or should I summarize? No, you can conclude now. Okay, thank you.

So I started by discussing about the issue of broadly war from a spiritualist perspective. And then I mentioned that how wars have been fought throughout history. That they are one of the defining characteristics, defining features when you study history.

But the stakes have become much higher now because of weapons of mass destruction and technological advancement. And deterrence is one of the main reasons why wars don't break out so often. Then you mentioned how wars are fought for various reasons.

And sometimes it is for power, for possession, for trade routes, for just ambition, expansionism. Or sometimes it could be infatuation with beauty. Sometimes also it is to cover up.

What was the word you said? Ultimo rego. Ultima reteo regum. Ultima reteo regum.

That it is the ultimate resort of the king. So war outs, so discontent inside can be, people can be distracted by war outside. The cynical thing could be there.

Now today we also discussed that how the warriors and the politicians have become separated. And that's why this kind of cynical wars can be fought more nonchalantly by people. And I mentioned that how science and the advent of reason was, it was thought that it will bring down wars, but that didn't happen.

In fact, technology, which is the product of science, led to greater destruction than what is in the past. So the problem we discussed in terms of the three modes, that reason works largely when people are in the mode of goodness. But when people are in the mode of passion and ignorance, then they will fight.

So wars are sometimes resolvable. Sometimes, or rather conflicts are sometimes resolvable without war. And whenever it is, it should be done that way.

And that is why if there are level-headed people in goodness, then they will try their best to resolve a peaceful means. And in the Vedic setup, there was the Kshatriyas in passion and the Brahmanas in goodness. So in some cases, when the war is not resolved, like in the case of Kurukshetra war, in the Ramayana, the Mahabharata wars, or you mentioned when one kingdom is misadministered, is ruled improperly, then the neighboring king might intervene for the welfare of people.

But there was no attack on the civilians. So we could say that is a sattvic war. A war with no attack on the civilians.

But now it is the opposite. The scorched earth policy, or the housing of hostages, and all kinds of brutalities being performed. These are kama-sikh wars.

And then we talked about what spiritualists can do. So from the perspective of the three modes, we need to increase the mode of goodness as much as possible by our own spiritual practices. And also we need to see if people who are in power are in the mode of goodness, or more people who are in goodness are more in power, then at least unnecessary confrontations can be avoided from escalating to the level of warfare.

And then we talked about what to do for a spiritualist. We appreciate that the soldiers who are fighting at the nation's border, they are giving us the space to practice our spiritual life, which applies for all countries. And specifically for India, they are protecting from vandalism, the sacred places of our dharmic spiritual traditions.

And beyond that, devotees, if they have that particular zeal, they can create the space for themselves, where they can engage in nationalistic zeal. But they shouldn't pressure others or guilt others into also getting involved. And thirdly, we shouldn't ourselves, when nationalistic passions arise, we shouldn't devalue our spiritual practices, thinking that they are too transcendental.

They are the ultimate solution because they will raise the human consciousness. And I discussed about the difference between movement and institution that sometimes devotees, if they need to express their Prabhupada says, isms can be included, can be embedded in bhakti. So they can create some forums for contributing in that direction if they are very interested in say nationalistic causes.

Any points I left out? No, covered almost all. Okay, thank you. This is a wonderful discussion.

So I think we titled it War and Terrorism. So we will take terrorism in our second part. Is that correct? Yes, definitely.

We'll talk about it next time. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.